The Baltimore Transit Co.

12 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,335 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,501 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling
316 U.S. 517 (1942) Cited 523 times
Holding that maintenance workers of clothing manufacturer were covered under the FLSA
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Federal Comm'n v. Broadcasting Co.
309 U.S. 134 (1940) Cited 515 times
Noting the "familiar doctrine that a lower court is bound to respect the mandate of an appellate tribunal and cannot reconsider questions which the mandate has laid to rest"
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
I.A. of M. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 72 (1940) Cited 317 times
In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 316 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Labor Board v. Falk Corp.
308 U.S. 453 (1940) Cited 140 times
In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.

The Baltimore Transit Co.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that maintenance workers of clothing manufacturer were covered under the FLSA

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

Noting the "familiar doctrine that a lower court is bound to respect the mandate of an appellate tribunal and cannot reconsider questions which the mandate has laid to rest"

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.